1. Timothy Kay
SM 495
Dr. Grube
Jan Kemp and the UGA Football Scandal of the 1980’s
The NCAA mission statement on the NCAA website (2013), is to “be an integral part of
higher education and focus on the development of student-athletes” and in regards to their
collegiate model of athletics that “must be student-centered in all that they do and that the
association was founded on integrating athletics into the educational experience and that the men
and women go to our schools for the great educational experience” (NCAA website, 2013).
However, Jan Kemp would have argued that through her experience with college athletics, that
athletics would take precedence over academic integrity. Instead of working in conjunction with
academics to enhance the “educational experience” in the NCAA mission statement, the
University of Georgia sacrificed their academic mission in order to emphasize their pursuit of
athletic prowess. Despite the fact that the Georgia scandal happened over thirty years ago, there
are still scandals that occur because athletics continue to take precedence over academics. These
scandals show that despite the passage of time and attempts to ensure that academic requirements
are being met, that there are still programs that try to slip by NCAA set standards.
There is a precedence of history in the NCAA establishing a system of “minimum”
academic requirements in order for student athletes to be eligible for college enrollment and
athletic participation. The first NCAA instituted the first true academic eligibility standard with
the passage of the 1.6 rule in 1965; a type of methodology could predict that the student athlete
would be able to earn a 1.6 GPA as a freshman in college, then they would be able to participate
in the athletic forum (Blackman, 2008). Then in 1973, the rule was replaced with the 2.0 rule.
The one fundamental is the student athlete was only required to graduate from high school with

2. at least a 2.0 GPA. However it would last slightly over a decade (or mid 1980’s) due to a lack of
uniform coherence by high schools and abuses from NCAA institutions (Blackman, 2008).
During the 1980’s, there was no national academic standards to see if a freshman would
be eligible, no academic report forms that would document what kind of students schools were
bringing in to play sports, no graduation rate reports, and no monitoring to see if athletes were
maintaining a satisfactory trajectory in completing their coursework towards a degree. There was
also no established financial oversight in assisting athletes to succeed in the classroom or
academic centers with the academic support staff to help athletes (Forde, 2008). This lack of
support or universities concern on whether their athletes would be successful was not challenged
until Jan Kemp came forth.
A brave woman who believed in the integrity of academics and that a university’s ethical
duty shouldn’t be compromised brought forth the University of Georgia’s unethical and corrupt
actions. Jan Kemp was a coordinator of the University of Georgia’s remedial program and she
was one of several faculty members to complain about the fact that Georgia officials had allowed
nine football players to pass a remedial English class (Goldstein, 2008). The Georgia officials
bypassed the fact that the players had been failing. In doing so, the athletes were considered
academically eligible to play in Georgia’s matchup with Pittsburgh in the Sugar Bowl of 1982
(Goldstein, 2008). During this time, it is key to see that Georgia was one of college football’s
elite programs ran under the dual role of head coach and athletic director, Vince Dooley, who
had led Georgia to a national title just a couple years before. In fact, Vince Dooley testified that
athletes were admitted with SAT scores of less than 650 out of the maximum score of 1,600 and
that…”in order to be reasonably competitive, we thought that leeway was necessary.”(Farrey,
2003).

3. Jan Kemp took a stand by exposing these blatant and unethical practices by the university
officials to change grades for athletic success, and thus, got terminated from her position as
coordinator in 1982 and then got dismissed from the university in 1983. Dr. Kemp filed a lawsuit
that claiming that she had been forced out because she complained about the unethical practices
being done. She further stipulated that in doing so, the university was violating her constitutional
right of free speech (Goldstein, 2008). When the case hit the Atlanta Federal Court in January of
1986, university officials argued their position that actions were justified when relating to the
football players. They said that athletes had been admitted to Georgia’s regular curriculum
because they were making the necessary progress needed in their studies. The officials contended
that Dr. Kemp was dismissed for disruptive behavior and that she was unable to meet the
standard scholarly research required (Goldstein, 2008). From this statement, the university
officials are showing a blatant disregard for Dr. Kemp’s professionalism by calling her a
troublemaker because she was standing up to them. Jan Kemp wouldn’t go along with the
unethical behavior and decided that she couldn’t keep quiet. She believed in the sanctity of
academics and she refused to sacrifice her ideals and ethics for a university who seemed to be
only concerned with their athletic standing.
The university believed that they were justified in their actions because their ideals of
what constituted success in an athlete, or as defense lawyer O. Hale Almand Jr. stated to the jury,
“We may not make a university student out of him but if we can teach him to read and write,
maybe he can work at the post office rather than as a garbage-man when he gets through with his
athletic career”(Goldstein, 2008). The jury didn’t take the university’s argument and instead
found in favor of Jan Kemp. They believed that she had been dismissed illegally and awarded
her $2.5 million (which was later reduced to $1.08 million) for lost wages, mental anguish and

4. punitive damages. She was also later reinstated to the university in a faculty member position
until 1990 (Goldstein, 2008). Despite the decision in favor of Jan Kemp, the University of
Georgia faced no NCAA violations. In fact, the NCAA is an athletic body that for the most part,
allows schools to determine if they had violated their own academic policies. As one NCAA
investigator mentioned to Dr. Kemp, “We don’t want to hear anything about grades. All we are
interested in are cars, trips or things of that sort”. She replied that she had hoped that the
university did give the athletes cars since they were definitely not getting their education (Farrey,
2003).
The repercussions of the trial had an impact on the University of Georgia, the overall
college academic/athletic environment and even brought up vexing questions on ethics and
examine what we view as important in society. The university president at the time, Dr. Fred
Davison announced his resignation in 1986 and then in April of that year, the board of regents in
the University of Georgia issued a report that the Georgia athletic department had a pattern of
academic abuse in both admitting and advancing student-athletes over a four-year span. Both Dr.
Davison and the coach/athletic director, Vince Dooley, denied any improper conduct; however,
Georgia tightened academic standards for athletes (Forde, 2008). However, in 2003 the
university was brought to the spotlight again when former basketball head coach Jim Harrick and
his son/assistant coach Jim Jr. were associated with academic fraud. It was revealed that Jim Jr.
had given passing grades to players for classes that they never attended and that Jim Sr. had
tampered with his student-athletes grades at his old employment with the University of Rhode
Island (Blackman, 2008). As this scandal has shown, despite the fact that the university had
already gone through its share of scandal in the past with the Jan Kemp case, that it didn’t
prevent the Harrick scandal from occurring.

5. The NCAA had shown signs of improvement in the 1970’s and 1980’s rule’s
enforcement but there was still rampant recruiting as well as both academic and financial aid
abuses (Blackman, 2008). The public was concerned that both the integrity of college athletics
and education were being compromised (Blackman, 2008). As a product of the many scandals
occurring in academics/athletics, Proposition 48 came into existence in 1986, as the first
legislation that set minimum criteria in standardized test scores and grade point averages in
freshman eligibility. The requirements stipulated that the student athlete must score at least a 700
on the SAT or a 15 on the ACT, complete eleven high school core academic courses with a
minimum GPA of 2.0 in order to be athletically eligible (Blackman, 2008). In 1989, Proposition
42 was created to effectively tighten restrictions on Proposition 48. This meant that student-
athletes had to meet one academic eligible requirement on only need-based financial aid and not
athletic based financial aid (Blackman, 2008). Through Prop 48, NCAA was serious in its
attempts to fend off rules violations with establishing itself as a central authority, encouraging
academic reform and establishing stringent eligibility standards.
After a decade of scandal within college athletics, The Knight Commission on
Intercollegiate Athletics released an independent report in 1991, which called for greater control
of intercollegiate athletics and a dedication to confirm academic and fiscal integrity through a
certification process (Blackman, 2008). Stemming from the report and the public outcry from
scandals, the NCAA came up with a much stronger academic reform package called Prop 16 in
1992 with full implementation in 1996-1997. Prop 16 required 2 additional core courses with a
2.0 high school GPA paired with an ACT/SAT score on a sliding scale. Then in 2004, NCAA
came forth with two new reforms in conjunction with NCAA Bylaw 14.3.1.1.1. The bylaw stated
that the student athlete needed to meet the Initial Eligibility Index. It basically allowed high

6. school athletes to score lower on the SAT if the GPA was high (for example, a 400 SAT if the
GPA was 3.55 or higher) (Meyer, 2005). The new reforms include the use of the Academic
Progress Rate or APR and the 40/60/80 progress towards degree requirement. The APR
measures by a team-to-team basis (for each school) on how their athletes are progressing and are
given point value. The minimum APR score was set at 925 and for teams that don’t make that
standard are put on sanctions. The 40/60/80 progress towards degree requirement states that once
a major is declared, a student must complete 40% going into the 3rd year, 60% going to the 4th,
and 80% going into the 5th (Meyer, 2005). Those reforms created the standard we are today in
regards to the requirements set on student athletes. 2016 standards will require that at the
beginning of high school, that the student athlete must complete 10 of the 16 core classes with
the GPA being raised to 2.3 (Sherman, 2012).
In terms of how the Jan Kemp scandal at the University of Georgia has affected today’s
college academic and athletic forums; it highlighted a system of corruption and an institution that
valued winning and athletic success over academic integrity. In this case, amongst other scandals
(including recent ones such as Florida State and University of North Carolina), the university
officials had willingly and negligently forgotten and ignored the term “student” and instead
focused solely on the “athlete”. Despite opinion that sport in college athletics has lost its
“amateurism” ideals; the fact is athletes who choose to play college sports did with the
understanding that they have to conform to academic standards. However, it is the
administration’s responsibility to ensure that standards are being met. The impact of the NCAA
has been extremely positive and academic issues within intercollegiate athletics have been
addressed. The responsibility of student athletes should not be shouldered by the NCAA but
instead, should be an institutional responsibility (LaForge & Hodge).

7. References
Blackman, P. C. (2008). The NCAA's Academic Performance Program: Academic Reform or
Academic Racism?.UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 15(2), 225-289.
Farrey, T. (2003, October 7). ESPN.com: NCAA - Georgia: Better late than never.
Retrieved September 23, 2013, from
http://a.espncdn.com/ncaa/s/2003/1006/1632219.html
Forde, P. (2008, December 11). Pat Forde: Death of Jan Kemp, a college football whistle-
blower - ESPN. Retrieved September 20, 2013, from
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3761411&sportC
at=ncf
Goldstein, R. (2008, September 11). Jan Kemp Dies at 59; Exposed Fraud in Grades of Players -
Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com. Retrieved September 23, 2013, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/education/12kemp.html?_r=1&
Laforge, L., & Hodge, J. NCAA Academic Performance Metrics: Implications for Institutional
Policy and Practice. (2011). Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 217-235.
Meyer, S. K. (2005). NCAA Academic Reforms: Maintaining the Balance between Academics
and Athletics. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(3), 15-18.
National Collegiate Athletic Association." Office of the President. N.p., 5 Oct. 2010. Web. 27
Sep. 2013.
Sherman, M. (2012, May 3). New incoming eligibility standards create term - ESPN.
Retrieved September 27, 2013, from http://espn.go.com/college-
sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/7885522/new-incoming-eligibility-standards-create-
term